Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-19-2019 9:15 PM
27 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,170 Year: 9,206/19,786 Month: 1,628/2,119 Week: 388/576 Day: 63/128 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
31NextFF
Author Topic:   Evolving New Information
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2806 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 31 of 458 (509171)
05-19-2009 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Huntard
05-19-2009 3:37 AM


Ahah, no wonder I couldn't find it
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Huntard, posted 05-19-2009 3:37 AM Huntard has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 32 of 458 (509175)
05-19-2009 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by slevesque
05-19-2009 3:16 AM


Sorry, i should have said:

''If you want to use the former (descent with modification) to justify the possibility of the latter (dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, modern apes and humans have a common ancestor, etc.) you will need much more than that.''

I acknowledge it is not the same thing. But my original idea was this one.

Well, in that case, I would point out that we know of mutations that fuse and split chromosomes, that insert and delete bases, and that change any base to any other base. We know of some other sorts of mutations too, but these alone are sufficient to convert any eukaryote genome to any other eukaryote genome.

Hence, descent with modification is indeed sufficient to achieve the results you specify.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 3:16 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 33 of 458 (509189)
05-19-2009 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Huntard
05-19-2009 3:37 AM


end e mispeled bek to.

--perch


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Huntard, posted 05-19-2009 3:37 AM Huntard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by onifre, posted 05-19-2009 12:36 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1117 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 34 of 458 (509217)
05-19-2009 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Percy
05-19-2009 8:35 AM


end e mispeled bek to.
--perch

Perch, did you pass out on your keyboard again...?

- Ino


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 05-19-2009 8:35 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 461 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 35 of 458 (509219)
05-19-2009 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by slevesque
05-19-2009 2:05 AM


slevesque writes:

Yes it would qualify as a new trait. I have the feeling your are refering to the Lenski experiment, which would be a prime example to discuss this.


Ok, since you admit that being able to digest stuff you couldn't digest before qualifies as a new trait, let me present you with evidence that not only do new traits spring up because of evolution, entire genes spring up, and even new information.

Alright, on with the show!

Our topic today concerns a bacteria, that through evolution, can now digest nylon.

This is the original gene:


Click to enlarge

This gene was copied. But no new information was created, since it was a copy. This also means that one copy can mutate freely.

The next thing that happened wasn't just any mutation, but the most dramatic one we know. A frameshift mutation. This will affect every single amino acid from the point of the frameshift onwards. An example of how this works:

Amino acids are formed by a combination of three nucleotides, for example:

|G A A | C G C|
Glutamate|Arginine

Now, when you insert a nucleotide (which is what this mutation does), it doesn't just change the amino acid it gets inserted to, but every single one after that as well, again for example we insert C into the first position:

|C G A | A C G| C
Alanine|Threonine

So much for the example.

There are 427 amino acids in the original gene. Now, creationists like to claim that the ability to digest nylon was already there in the gene, but they're wrong.

The frameshift occurred at the 33rd amino acid, altering over 92% of the gene's information. Seen here in red:


Click to enlarge

This is NOT a loss of information, however, because this gene is a copy.

The frameshift added a new sequence to the gene, seen here in green:


Click to enlarge

But not only that, it also made a new start codon at the insertion point. This means that this is an entirely new gene!

This is the entirely new gene:


Click to enlarge

And now: How much information was created by this?

There are 4 nucleotides total.So, when we take the equation from information theory:

LOG2(4) = 2 bits (the 4 here being the total number of possibilities)

An amino acid is made by three nucleotides, so that is:

3*2 bits = 6 bits for every amino acid

since this mutation generated a sequence of 392 amino acids, we get:

392*6 bits = 2352 bits of completely new information.

The source of all this can be found here

And the video I kinda transcribed here is found here

Edited by Huntard, : Picture wasn't working


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 2:05 AM slevesque has not yet responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1117 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 36 of 458 (509221)
05-19-2009 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by slevesque
05-19-2009 2:16 AM


What I wanted to say is this. If you show me a population of pinches, who's beeks change in size and shape depending on the environment and the food they have access to, and say this is descent with modification, then I will readily approve with you.

Ok

But if, after having shown me this, you tell me that such a mechanism, extrapolated to vast amounts of time, could turn a pinch into let's say, a horse, then I will not agree with you.

Neither would I, any one familiar with biology or an experts in the field. So you are in good company. :)

If you want to use the former (descent with modification) to prove the latter (dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, modern apes and humans have a common ancestor, etc.) you will need much more than that.

Ok. How about genetics, fossils and similar morphology...?

This is why it would be interesting to discuss the Lenski experiment, since when I read the article back in 2007, it was actually the very first time that I said to myself: maybe they finally have it, maybe they do have a recorded example of a new trait evolving in a population.

Would bipedal features on a primate be considered a *new* trait...?

We can discuss the Lenski experiment if you want, honestly I'm not that familiar with the specifics, but the fossil record and genetics gives us the evidence we need to show *new* traits.

- Oni


"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks

"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by slevesque, posted 05-19-2009 2:16 AM slevesque has not yet responded

    
pandion
Member (Idle past 1166 days)
Posts: 166
From: Houston
Joined: 04-06-2009


Message 37 of 458 (509273)
05-19-2009 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by slevesque
05-18-2009 1:39 AM


Although I would have thought 'evolution in action' would have been an addition of information in the peppered moth population.

Then you would have thought wrong. Evolution does not require an addition of information. There are, of course, several mechanisms of evolution that do, in fact add information to the genome of a population. It is also true that the addition of information to the genome of a population is, by definition, evolution. However, evolution can also happen when information in the genome of a population is reduced. You see, at the most basic level, evolution is a change in the allele frequencies in a population over generations. That is what happened (twice) in the case of the peppered moths. And it happened because of natural selection (one of the mechanisms of evolution).
This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 05-18-2009 1:39 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2806 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 38 of 458 (509474)
05-22-2009 1:27 AM


Ok so why do I have these as examples of evolution in my biology book then ?

Neither would I, any one familiar with biology or an experts in the field. So you are in good company.

Then you would have thought wrong. Evolution does not require an addition of information. There are, of course, several mechanisms of evolution that do, in fact add information to the genome of a population. It is also true that the addition of information to the genome of a population is, by definition, evolution. However, evolution can also happen when information in the genome of a population is reduced. You see, at the most basic level, evolution is a change in the allele frequencies in a population over generations. That is what happened (twice) in the case of the peppered moths. And it happened because of natural selection (one of the mechanisms of evolution).

I mean, they talk for about 10-15 pages about the happening of life in ancient-earth oceans, then about how bacterias evolved into fish, to ampibians, etc. from dinosaurs to birds, from australopithecus to humans, etc.

And then they arrive with the proofs of the theory of evolution, and I have variation of the color of peppered moth in the population, and the beaks of finches on the galapagos island, plus some story about big and small fishes in amazone rivers, similar to the peppered moth. I was like, what the heck ? I have no doubt that this kind of situation is not only in my biology book, but in many (if not most) others.

There could be an effort done to distinguish the evolution: simple descent with modification and the theory of evolution: from bacteria to bacteriologist. As you have said, simple examples of descent with modification can't really be used to justify the possibility of the later. I much more like examples such as Huntard's; of nylon digestion in bacteria, an argument I knew of but hadn't really investigated and so it will be very pleasant to do here BTW.

Ok. How about genetics, fossils and similar morphology...?

We will be discussing these subjects I hope, but in genetics alone, a good read would be ''genetic entropy ...'' by Dr. John Sanford. He gives a couple dozens citations from population geneticists which are extremely revealing of the many problems genetics and mutations pose to the theory of evolution. This maybe seems counter-intuitive, but I can tell you his book is one of the must bullet-proof I have seen on both sides. (and I read quite a lot)


Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2009 2:02 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 05-22-2009 7:12 AM slevesque has responded
 Message 49 by Taq, posted 05-22-2009 2:59 PM slevesque has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 39 of 458 (509477)
05-22-2009 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by slevesque
05-22-2009 1:27 AM


And then they arrive with the proofs of the theory of evolution, and I have variation of the color of peppered moth in the population, and the beaks of finches on the galapagos island, plus some story about big and small fishes in amazone rivers, similar to the peppered moth.

Those are examples of natural selection in action.

They are not the proofs of:

... the happening of life in ancient-earth oceans, then about how bacterias evolved into fish, to ampibians, etc. from dinosaurs to birds, from australopithecus to humans, etc.

Please try to distinguish between these two concepts.

There could be an effort done to distinguish the evolution: simple descent with modification and the theory of evolution: from bacteria to bacteriologist.

You have that almost exactly the wrong way round.

We will be discussing these subjects I hope, but in genetics alone, a good read would be ''genetic entropy ...'' by Dr. John Sanford. He gives a couple dozens citations from population geneticists which are extremely revealing of the many problems genetics and mutations pose to the theory of evolution.

A look through the reviews of it suggests that he has a theoretical argument that what we observe can't happen and what we never observe must. It reminds me of the (apocryphal) story of the scientists who claimed to have proved that bees can't fly.

It also appears to be standard creationist rubbish, although maybe I'm doing him a disservice --- maybe they got it from him.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by slevesque, posted 05-22-2009 1:27 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by slevesque, posted 05-23-2009 3:09 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 40 of 458 (509491)
05-22-2009 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by slevesque
05-22-2009 1:27 AM


slevesque writes:

But if, after having shown me this, you tell me that such a mechanism, extrapolated to vast amounts of time, could turn a finch into let's say, a horse, then I will not agree with you.

Neither would I, any one familiar with biology or an experts in the field. So you are in good company. :)

Ok so why do I have these as examples of evolution in my biology book then?

So your biology book provides the example of finches evolving into horses? Interesting. I suggest you use it for heating purposes the next cold winter.

I mean, they talk for about 10-15 pages about the happening of life in ancient-earth oceans, then about how bacterias evolved into fish, to ampibians, etc. from dinosaurs to birds, from australopithecus to humans, etc.

Now this is entirely reasonable, so maybe you shouldn't burn your biology book after all. A finch evolving into a horse is not the same as what you say here. Birds aren't even mammals.

a good read would be Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome by Dr. John Sanford...I can tell you his book is one of the must bullet-proof I have seen on both sides. (and I read quite a lot)

Thanks for the assurances, but you just revealed that you think a finch evolving into a horse is a valid example of evolution, so the evidence would suggest that despite your voluminous reading you lack the understanding of biology necessary for assessing the validity of what you read. About Sanford Wikipedia says:

Wikipedia writes:

An advocate of intelligent design, in 2005 Sanford testified in the Kansas evolution hearings on behalf of intelligent design, during which he denied the principle of common descent and "humbly offered ... that we were created by a special creation, by God." He also stated that he believed the age of the Earth was "Between 5,000 and 100,000" years.

By the way, note Sanford's somewhat conflicting views, where he accepts ID while simultaneously rejecting common descent and believing in a young Earth just like young Earth creationists. Michael Behe, arguably the founder of the ID movement, accepts common descent and rejects a young Earth. Could I suggest to you that Sanford is not a reliable source, and that the fact that a read of his book doesn't reveal this to you further suggests that you be cautious in trusting your intuitions about biology.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by slevesque, posted 05-22-2009 1:27 AM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 05-22-2009 7:29 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 57 by slevesque, posted 05-23-2009 3:22 AM Percy has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15047
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 41 of 458 (509494)
05-22-2009 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Percy
05-22-2009 7:12 AM


Minor corrections
quote:

By the way, note Sanford's somewhat conflicting views, where he accepts ID while simultaneously rejecting common descent and believing in a young Earth just like young Earth creationists.

There's no real conflict. ID is a "big tent" which happily accepts YECs (such as Paul Nelson and Nancy Pearcey). (This is one reason why there is no theory of ID - ID contains so many conflicting views that no single theory could encompass them all).

quote:

Michael Behe, arguably the founder of the ID movement, accepts common descent and rejects a young Earth.

I wouldn't consider Behe to be the founder of the ID movement at all. Given that he seems to have been a very early member of the movement I'd accept one of the founders of the ID movement but I don't think he played a sufficiently prominent role in organising it. I'd nominate Philip Johnson (who did take a leading role) or, if intellectual influence is considered, possibly Michael Denton (whose work was a strong influence on both Behe and Johnson - and probably others)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Percy, posted 05-22-2009 7:12 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 458 (509535)
05-22-2009 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
05-01-2009 8:57 AM


gca
Percy writes:

# GGAACG (green eyes)
# GGAACA (blue eyes)
# GGCACG (yellow eyes)

Bull shit Percy.

You don't know what strand of DNA codes for what.


There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blɛz paskal


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 05-01-2009 8:57 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-22-2009 9:56 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded
 Message 44 by NosyNed, posted 05-22-2009 9:59 AM LucyTheApe has responded
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 05-22-2009 10:05 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 458 (509538)
05-22-2009 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by LucyTheApe
05-22-2009 9:45 AM


Re: gca
While we're here this is a good opportunity to flesh out the details
of what the genetic code actually does.

Percy, do you believe that the DNA code appeared without intelligence?

Off topic material hidden.

The topic is about the evolution of information based on previously existing information.

Edited by AdminNosy, : Heading off a topic distraction.


There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.

blɛz paskal


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-22-2009 9:45 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 44 of 458 (509540)
05-22-2009 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by LucyTheApe
05-22-2009 9:45 AM


It's an Example
You don't know what strand of DNA codes for what.

Yes, he does, Lucy. This is a hypothetical example. If you haven't got that much yet then you should go back and read everything v e r y s l o w l y.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-22-2009 9:45 AM LucyTheApe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-22-2009 10:10 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 47 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-22-2009 10:25 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18484
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 45 of 458 (509541)
05-22-2009 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by LucyTheApe
05-22-2009 9:45 AM


Re: gca
I think you're completely lost. I presented a simple example illustrating how random mutations can increase information. Your complaint makes no more sense than if I were explaining algebra and after I presented the problem "y=4x+7" you complained that I had no way of knowing the relationship between x and y.

But there's more than one way to explain anything, so if the correspondence to actual eye color bothers you then we'll just simplify the example.

Imagine that in a population, one of the genes has three messages that it can communicate. Each message consists of a sequence of six nucleotides (the nucleotides for DNA are guanine, adenine, cytosine and thymine, and they're represented by the letters G, A, C and T):

  • GGAACG
  • GGAACA
  • GGCACG

Since there are three messages in the message set for this gene, the amount of information it can communicate is log23 = 1.585 bits.

Now imagine that in the next generation one of the offspring experiences a mutation in this gene. Had there been no mutation then it would have received the GGCACG message, but the mutation switches the last nucleotide from guanine to adenine, and the message becomes GGCACA. Now in the genome for the population there exists four messages for this gene:

  • GGAACG
  • GGAACA
  • GGCACG
  • GGCACA

There are now four messages in the message set for this gene, and the amount of information it can communicate is log24 = 2 bits, an increase of .415 bits.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.

Edited by Percy, : Still learning to type, apparently. Anyone finding more typos, please be specific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by LucyTheApe, posted 05-22-2009 9:45 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by NosyNed, posted 05-22-2009 1:45 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev12
3
456
...
31NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019